Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 431 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 221 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 43 | 50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72) | 50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72) | 51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72) | 0.747 |
gender | 43 | 0.449 | |||
f | 29 (67%) | 13 (62%) | 16 (73%) | ||
m | 14 (33%) | 8 (38%) | 6 (27%) | ||
occupation | 43 | 0.978 | |||
full_time | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
other | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
part_time | 7 (16%) | 4 (19%) | 3 (14%) | ||
retired | 13 (30%) | 6 (29%) | 7 (32%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (23%) | 5 (24%) | 5 (23%) | ||
marital | 43 | 0.892 | |||
divore | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
married | 8 (19%) | 3 (14%) | 5 (23%) | ||
none | 24 (56%) | 12 (57%) | 12 (55%) | ||
seperation | 3 (7.0%) | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
widow | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
edu | 43 | 0.399 | |||
bachelor | 13 (30%) | 5 (24%) | 8 (36%) | ||
diploma | 7 (16%) | 5 (24%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (9.3%) | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
primary | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 10 (23%) | 7 (33%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
fam_income | 43 | 0.881 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (21%) | 6 (29%) | 3 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (12%) | 2 (9.5%) | 3 (14%) | ||
4001_6000 | 6 (14%) | 3 (14%) | 3 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
medication | 43 | 37 (86%) | 17 (81%) | 20 (91%) | 0.412 |
onset_duration | 43 | 16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56) | 17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56) | 15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35) | 0.519 |
onset_age | 43 | 34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62) | 32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55) | 36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62) | 0.334 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 431 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 221 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 43 | 3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5) | 3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.761 |
recovery_stage_b | 43 | 18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23) | 18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23) | 18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23) | 0.938 |
ras_confidence | 43 | 30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40) | 30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40) | 31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39) | 0.545 |
ras_willingness | 43 | 12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15) | 12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15) | 0.959 |
ras_goal | 43 | 17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24) | 17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23) | 17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24) | 0.833 |
ras_reliance | 43 | 13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18) | 13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20) | 0.680 |
ras_domination | 43 | 10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15) | 9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14) | 0.036 |
symptom | 43 | 29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56) | 28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45) | 30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56) | 0.614 |
slof_work | 43 | 22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30) | 23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30) | 22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30) | 0.571 |
slof_relationship | 43 | 26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35) | 26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35) | 25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35) | 0.496 |
satisfaction | 43 | 21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30) | 19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29) | 22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30) | 0.204 |
mhc_emotional | 43 | 11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18) | 11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17) | 12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18) | 0.435 |
mhc_social | 43 | 14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25) | 15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25) | 14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23) | 0.733 |
mhc_psychological | 43 | 22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33) | 22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36) | 0.473 |
resilisnce | 43 | 16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25) | 16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24) | 17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25) | 0.897 |
social_provision | 43 | 13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20) | 13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20) | 13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19) | 0.638 |
els_value_living | 43 | 17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23) | 16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20) | 17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23) | 0.558 |
els_life_fulfill | 43 | 13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18) | 12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17) | 13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18) | 0.096 |
els | 43 | 30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40) | 29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36) | 31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40) | 0.201 |
social_connect | 43 | 26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48) | 27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45) | 26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48) | 0.897 |
shs_agency | 43 | 14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20) | 13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20) | 14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20) | 0.537 |
shs_pathway | 43 | 16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22) | 16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21) | 17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22) | 0.390 |
shs | 43 | 30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42) | 29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41) | 31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42) | 0.434 |
esteem | 43 | 12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15) | 12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14) | 12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15) | 0.364 |
mlq_search | 43 | 15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20) | 0.972 |
mlq_presence | 43 | 13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21) | 14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19) | 13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21) | 0.464 |
mlq | 43 | 28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41) | 29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40) | 28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41) | 0.676 |
empower | 43 | 19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28) | 20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24) | 19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28) | 0.837 |
ismi_resistance | 43 | 14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19) | 14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20) | 0.960 |
ismi_discrimation | 43 | 11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19) | 12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17) | 10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 0.100 |
sss_affective | 43 | 9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15) | 9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18) | 0.494 |
sss_behavior | 43 | 9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18) | 0.318 |
sss_cognitive | 43 | 7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15) | 8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18) | 0.647 |
sss | 43 | 26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54) | 27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44) | 25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54) | 0.642 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.263 | 2.86, 3.90 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.119 | 0.368 | -0.603, 0.841 | 0.748 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.775 | 0.547 | -0.296, 1.85 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.043 | 0.914 | -1.75, 1.84 | 0.962 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.058 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.4 | 0.583 | 17.3, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.065 | 0.815 | -1.66, 1.53 | 0.937 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.679 | 0.474 | -1.61, 0.251 | 0.195 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.54 | 0.820 | -0.068, 3.15 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.037 | 28.2, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.898 | 1.450 | -1.94, 3.74 | 0.539 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.510 | 0.852 | -1.16, 2.18 | 0.568 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.044 | 1.472 | -2.84, 2.93 | 0.977 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.442 | 11.4, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.618 | -1.18, 1.24 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.586 | 0.667 | -1.89, 0.722 | 0.404 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.677 | 1.143 | -1.56, 2.92 | 0.568 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.673 | 16.3, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.201 | 0.941 | -1.64, 2.04 | 0.832 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.045 | 0.482 | -0.900, 0.989 | 0.928 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.073 | 0.833 | -1.56, 1.71 | 0.933 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.683 | 11.9, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.398 | 0.955 | -1.47, 2.27 | 0.679 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.033 | 0.496 | -0.940, 1.01 | 0.948 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.739 | 0.858 | -0.943, 2.42 | 0.416 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.502 | 9.97, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.54 | 0.702 | -2.92, -0.168 | 0.033 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.969 | 0.940 | -2.81, 0.874 | 0.318 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.01 | 1.594 | -0.113, 6.13 | 0.075 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.102 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 2.254 | 24.4, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.60 | 3.151 | -4.58, 7.77 | 0.615 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.27 | 2.240 | -5.66, 3.12 | 0.587 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.64 | 3.865 | -5.93, 9.22 | 0.683 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.4 | 1.097 | 21.3, 25.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.883 | 1.533 | -3.89, 2.12 | 0.568 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.55 | 0.617 | -2.76, -0.340 | 0.040 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.37 | 1.067 | -0.718, 3.47 | 0.239 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.264 | 24.5, 29.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.23 | 1.767 | -4.69, 2.24 | 0.492 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -2.59 | 0.913 | -4.38, -0.798 | 0.024 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 4.07 | 1.578 | 0.976, 7.16 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 1.487 | 16.9, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.69 | 2.079 | -1.39, 6.76 | 0.203 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.79 | 1.092 | 0.648, 4.93 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.743 | 1.888 | -4.44, 2.96 | 0.706 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.746 | 9.68, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.857 | 1.043 | -1.19, 2.90 | 0.415 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.47 | 1.440 | -1.35, 4.29 | 0.354 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.631 | 2.434 | -4.14, 5.40 | 0.804 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 1.152 | 12.9, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.509 | 1.610 | -3.66, 2.65 | 0.754 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.88 | 1.884 | -0.808, 6.58 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.89 | 3.218 | -10.2, 2.42 | 0.242 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 1.352 | 18.9, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.38 | 1.890 | -2.32, 5.09 | 0.468 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.81 | 2.435 | -2.96, 6.58 | 0.471 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.28 | 4.138 | -10.4, 5.83 | 0.590 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 1.031 | 14.8, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.188 | 1.442 | -2.64, 3.01 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.400 | 0.653 | -0.879, 1.68 | 0.559 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.89 | 1.129 | -5.11, -0.682 | 0.037 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.734 | 12.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.481 | 1.026 | -1.53, 2.49 | 0.642 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.633 | 0.715 | -2.03, 0.770 | 0.405 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.41 | 1.235 | -1.01, 3.83 | 0.289 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.666 | 15.6, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 0.931 | -1.27, 2.38 | 0.556 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.27 | 0.795 | -0.287, 2.83 | 0.150 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.33 | 1.369 | -4.01, 1.36 | 0.361 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.710 | 10.8, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.72 | 0.993 | -0.227, 3.66 | 0.091 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.49 | 0.765 | -0.013, 2.99 | 0.092 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.12 | 1.319 | -3.70, 1.47 | 0.424 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.065 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.242 | 26.6, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 1.736 | -1.13, 5.67 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.75 | 1.362 | 0.085, 5.42 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.47 | 2.347 | -7.07, 2.13 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 2.236 | 22.7, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.411 | 3.127 | -6.54, 5.72 | 0.896 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.79 | 1.761 | -1.66, 5.25 | 0.341 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 4.11 | 3.043 | -1.85, 10.1 | 0.217 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 1.052 | 11.7, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.922 | 1.470 | -1.96, 3.80 | 0.534 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.55 | 0.847 | -0.108, 3.21 | 0.110 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.865 | 1.464 | -3.73, 2.00 | 0.573 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.803 | 14.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.991 | 1.123 | -1.21, 3.19 | 0.382 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.956 | 0.682 | -0.382, 2.29 | 0.204 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.320 | 1.179 | -2.63, 1.99 | 0.794 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.720 | 26.5, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.91 | 2.405 | -2.80, 6.63 | 0.431 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.32 | 0.945 | 0.464, 4.17 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.36 | 1.635 | -4.57, 1.84 | 0.431 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.271 | 12.1, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.348 | 0.378 | -1.09, 0.393 | 0.362 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.00 | 0.520 | -0.020, 2.02 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.793 | 0.880 | -2.52, 0.932 | 0.383 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.099 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.736 | 13.7, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.037 | 1.029 | -1.98, 2.05 | 0.972 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.348 | 0.884 | -1.38, 2.08 | 0.705 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.308 | 1.522 | -2.68, 3.29 | 0.845 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.1 | 0.884 | 12.4, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.916 | 1.235 | -3.34, 1.51 | 0.463 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.258 | 0.568 | -0.854, 1.37 | 0.663 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.70 | 0.981 | -3.62, 0.226 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.480 | 26.4, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.879 | 2.069 | -4.93, 3.18 | 0.673 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.596 | 1.288 | -1.93, 3.12 | 0.657 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.34 | 2.224 | -5.70, 3.02 | 0.565 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.1 | 0.950 | 18.2, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.277 | 1.328 | -2.88, 2.33 | 0.836 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.081 | 0.553 | -1.16, 1.00 | 0.887 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.828 | 0.956 | -2.70, 1.05 | 0.415 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.583 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.043 | 0.815 | -1.64, 1.55 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.546 | 0.933 | -2.38, 1.28 | 0.576 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.974 | 1.596 | -2.15, 4.10 | 0.559 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.661 | 10.7, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.59 | 0.924 | -3.40, 0.220 | 0.092 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.31 | 0.876 | -3.02, 0.410 | 0.171 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.43 | 1.505 | -1.52, 4.38 | 0.366 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.929 | 8.13, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.907 | 1.299 | -3.45, 1.64 | 0.489 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.066 | 0.665 | -1.24, 1.37 | 0.923 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.754 | 1.149 | -3.01, 1.50 | 0.533 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.958 | 8.31, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.37 | 1.339 | -4.00, 1.25 | 0.311 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.53 | 1.048 | -3.59, 0.522 | 0.185 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.500 | 1.807 | -3.04, 4.04 | 0.789 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.48 | 0.892 | 5.73, 9.22 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.569 | 1.247 | -1.88, 3.01 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.57 | 0.987 | -0.368, 3.50 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.74 | 1.701 | -6.08, 0.592 | 0.147 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 2.604 | 22.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 3.641 | -8.85, 5.43 | 0.641 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.068 | 2.057 | -4.10, 3.96 | 0.975 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.30 | 3.554 | -9.27, 4.66 | 0.537 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.14) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.86, 3.90], t(46) = 12.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.84], t(46) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.85], t(46) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.84], t(46) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.29, 19.57], t(46) = 31.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.53], t(46) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.25], t(46) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.07, 3.15], t(46) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.21, 32.27], t(46) = 29.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.94, 3.74], t(46) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.18], t(46) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.93], t(46) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 9.06e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.42, 13.15], t(46) = 27.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.24], t(46) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.89, 0.72], t(46) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.56, 2.92], t(46) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.25, 18.89], t(46) = 26.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.04], t(46) = 0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.99], t(46) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.71], t(46) = 0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.90, 14.58], t(46) = 19.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.27], t(46) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.01], t(46) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.42], t(46) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.97, 11.94], t(46) = 21.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.92, -0.17], t(46) = -2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.87], t(46) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.01, 95% CI [-0.11, 6.13], t(46) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.44, 33.28], t(46) = 12.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.58, 7.77], t(46) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-5.66, 3.12], t(46) = -0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-5.93, 9.22], t(46) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.28, 25.58], t(46) = 21.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.89, 2.12], t(46) = -0.58, p = 0.565; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.76, -0.34], t(46) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.47], t(46) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.48, 29.43], t(46) = 21.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.69, 2.24], t(46) = -0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-4.38, -0.80], t(46) = -2.83, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.07, 95% CI [0.98, 7.16], t(46) = 2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.94, 22.77], t(46) = 13.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.39, 6.76], t(46) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.99])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.79, 95% CI [0.65, 4.93], t(46) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.44, 2.96], t(46) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.68, 12.60], t(46) = 14.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.90], t(46) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.35, 4.29], t(46) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-4.14, 5.40], t(46) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.93, 17.45], t(46) = 13.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.66, 2.65], t(46) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.81, 6.58], t(46) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.89, 95% CI [-10.20, 2.42], t(46) = -1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.92, 24.22], t(46) = 15.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.32, 5.09], t(46) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.81, 95% CI [-2.96, 6.58], t(46) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-10.39, 5.83], t(46) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.84, 18.88], t(46) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.01], t(46) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.68], t(46) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-5.11, -0.68], t(46) = -2.56, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.15, -0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [11.99, 14.87], t(46) = 18.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.49], t(46) = 0.47, p = 0.640; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.77], t(46) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.83], t(46) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.55, 18.16], t(46) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.38], t(46) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.80])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.83], t(46) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.96])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-4.01, 1.36], t(46) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(46) = 17.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(46) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.01, 2.99], t(46) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-3.81e-03, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.47], t(46) = -0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.61, 31.48], t(46) = 23.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.13, 5.67], t(46) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.00])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.75, 95% CI [0.08, 5.42], t(46) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.01, 0.95])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.47, 95% CI [-7.07, 2.13], t(46) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.66, 31.43], t(46) = 12.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.54, 5.72], t(46) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [-1.66, 5.25], t(46) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 4.11, 95% CI [-1.85, 10.08], t(46) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.65, 15.78], t(46) = 13.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.80], t(46) = 0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.21], t(46) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.69])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.73, 2.00], t(46) = -0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.76], t(46) = 20.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(46) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.38, 2.29], t(46) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.63, 1.99], t(46) = -0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.53, 33.28], t(46) = 17.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.80, 6.63], t(46) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.32, 95% CI [0.46, 4.17], t(46) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.06, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.36, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.84], t(46) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.36) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.14, 13.20], t(46) = 46.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.39], t(46) = -0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.02], t(46) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.93], t(46) = -0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.75, 16.63], t(46) = 20.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.05], t(46) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.08], t(46) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.68, 3.29], t(46) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.41, 15.87], t(46) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.34, 1.51], t(46) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.37], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.62, 0.23], t(46) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.43, 32.23], t(46) = 19.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-4.93, 3.18], t(46) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.12], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-5.70, 3.02], t(46) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(46) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.33], t(46) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.00], t(46) = -0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.05], t(46) = -0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.10], t(46) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.55], t(46) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.38, 1.28], t(46) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-2.15, 4.10], t(46) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(46) = 18.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.40, 0.22], t(46) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.02, 0.41], t(46) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.52, 4.38], t(46) = 0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.13, 11.77], t(46) = 10.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.64], t(46) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.37], t(46) = 0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.01, 1.50], t(46) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.31, 12.07], t(46) = 10.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.00, 1.25], t(46) = -1.02, p = 0.305; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.59, 0.52], t(46) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-3.04, 4.04], t(46) = 0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.73, 9.22], t(46) = 8.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.01], t(46) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.37, 3.50], t(46) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.87])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-6.08, 0.59], t(46) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.72], t(46) = 10.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.85, 5.43], t(46) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-4.10, 3.96], t(46) = -0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = -5.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.30, 95% CI [-9.27, 4.66], t(46) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 172.360 | 178.214 | -83.180 | 166.360 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 174.923 | 186.630 | -81.461 | 162.923 | 3.437 | 3 | 0.329 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 240.118 | 245.972 | -117.059 | 234.118 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 242.319 | 254.026 | -115.159 | 230.319 | 3.799 | 3 | 0.284 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 297.385 | 303.238 | -145.692 | 291.385 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 302.441 | 314.148 | -145.220 | 290.441 | 0.944 | 3 | 0.815 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 219.267 | 225.121 | -106.634 | 213.267 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 224.287 | 235.995 | -106.144 | 212.287 | 0.980 | 3 | 0.806 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 249.066 | 254.920 | -121.533 | 243.066 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 254.984 | 266.692 | -121.492 | 242.984 | 0.082 | 3 | 0.994 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 252.442 | 258.296 | -123.221 | 246.442 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 256.799 | 268.506 | -122.399 | 244.799 | 1.643 | 3 | 0.650 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 241.582 | 247.435 | -117.791 | 235.582 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 240.843 | 252.551 | -114.422 | 228.843 | 6.739 | 3 | 0.081 |
symptom | null | 3 | 381.230 | 387.084 | -187.615 | 375.230 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 386.521 | 398.229 | -187.261 | 374.521 | 0.709 | 3 | 0.871 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 301.065 | 306.919 | -147.532 | 295.065 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 301.475 | 313.183 | -144.738 | 289.475 | 5.590 | 3 | 0.133 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 321.924 | 327.778 | -157.962 | 315.924 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 320.700 | 332.407 | -154.350 | 308.700 | 7.224 | 3 | 0.065 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 341.122 | 346.976 | -167.561 | 335.122 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 337.934 | 349.641 | -162.967 | 325.934 | 9.188 | 3 | 0.027 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 278.581 | 284.435 | -136.291 | 272.581 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 282.337 | 294.045 | -135.169 | 270.337 | 2.244 | 3 | 0.523 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 322.403 | 328.257 | -158.202 | 316.403 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 325.241 | 336.948 | -156.620 | 313.241 | 3.162 | 3 | 0.367 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 338.302 | 344.155 | -166.151 | 332.302 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 343.341 | 355.049 | -165.671 | 331.341 | 0.960 | 3 | 0.811 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 297.500 | 303.354 | -145.750 | 291.500 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 297.210 | 308.917 | -142.605 | 285.210 | 6.290 | 3 | 0.098 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 265.511 | 271.365 | -129.755 | 259.511 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 269.512 | 281.219 | -128.756 | 257.512 | 1.999 | 3 | 0.573 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 259.857 | 265.711 | -126.929 | 253.857 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 262.892 | 274.600 | -125.446 | 250.892 | 2.965 | 3 | 0.397 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 268.337 | 274.191 | -131.169 | 262.337 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 267.810 | 279.518 | -127.905 | 255.810 | 6.527 | 3 | 0.089 |
els | null | 3 | 325.782 | 331.636 | -159.891 | 319.782 | |||
els | random | 6 | 326.225 | 337.933 | -157.113 | 314.225 | 5.557 | 3 | 0.135 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 380.741 | 386.595 | -187.371 | 374.741 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 381.592 | 393.299 | -184.796 | 369.592 | 5.150 | 3 | 0.161 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 301.757 | 307.610 | -147.878 | 295.757 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 303.510 | 315.218 | -145.755 | 291.510 | 4.246 | 3 | 0.236 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 273.745 | 279.599 | -133.872 | 267.745 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 276.415 | 288.122 | -132.207 | 264.415 | 3.330 | 3 | 0.344 |
shs | null | 3 | 348.659 | 354.513 | -171.330 | 342.659 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 347.883 | 359.590 | -167.941 | 335.883 | 6.777 | 3 | 0.079 |
esteem | null | 3 | 177.000 | 182.854 | -85.500 | 171.000 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 176.974 | 188.681 | -82.487 | 164.974 | 6.026 | 3 | 0.110 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 267.887 | 273.740 | -130.943 | 261.887 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 273.434 | 285.141 | -130.717 | 261.434 | 0.453 | 3 | 0.929 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 279.560 | 285.414 | -136.780 | 273.560 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 281.388 | 293.095 | -134.694 | 269.388 | 4.172 | 3 | 0.243 |
mlq | null | 3 | 335.174 | 341.028 | -164.587 | 329.174 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 340.423 | 352.130 | -164.212 | 328.423 | 0.751 | 3 | 0.861 |
empower | null | 3 | 282.824 | 288.677 | -138.412 | 276.824 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 287.142 | 298.850 | -137.571 | 275.142 | 1.681 | 3 | 0.641 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 248.621 | 254.475 | -121.311 | 242.621 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 254.028 | 265.735 | -121.014 | 242.028 | 0.594 | 3 | 0.898 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 262.717 | 268.570 | -128.358 | 256.717 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 263.935 | 275.642 | -125.967 | 251.935 | 4.782 | 3 | 0.188 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 283.671 | 289.525 | -138.836 | 277.671 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 288.539 | 300.247 | -138.270 | 276.539 | 1.132 | 3 | 0.769 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 296.937 | 302.790 | -145.468 | 290.937 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 299.215 | 310.922 | -143.607 | 287.215 | 3.722 | 3 | 0.293 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 289.551 | 295.405 | -141.776 | 283.551 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 292.006 | 303.713 | -140.003 | 280.006 | 3.546 | 3 | 0.315 |
sss | null | 3 | 392.465 | 398.318 | -193.232 | 386.465 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 397.476 | 409.183 | -192.738 | 385.476 | 0.989 | 3 | 0.804 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 21 | 3.38 ± 1.21 | 22 | 3.50 ± 1.21 | 0.748 | -0.103 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 6 | 4.16 ± 1.32 | -0.672 | 3 | 4.32 ± 1.34 | -0.710 | 0.864 | -0.141 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 21 | 18.43 ± 2.67 | 22 | 18.36 ± 2.67 | 0.937 | 0.078 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 6 | 17.75 ± 1.74 | 0.812 | 3 | 19.22 ± 1.47 | -1.028 | 0.193 | -1.762 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 21 | 30.24 ± 4.75 | 22 | 31.14 ± 4.75 | 0.539 | -0.598 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 6 | 30.75 ± 3.10 | -0.339 | 3 | 31.69 ± 2.63 | -0.368 | 0.637 | -0.627 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 21 | 12.29 ± 2.03 | 22 | 12.32 ± 2.03 | 0.958 | -0.026 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 6 | 11.70 ± 1.79 | 0.472 | 3 | 12.41 ± 1.74 | -0.073 | 0.574 | -0.571 |
ras_goal | 1st | 21 | 17.57 ± 3.08 | 22 | 17.77 ± 3.08 | 0.832 | -0.238 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 6 | 17.62 ± 1.93 | -0.053 | 3 | 17.89 ± 1.59 | -0.139 | 0.822 | -0.324 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 21 | 13.24 ± 3.13 | 22 | 13.64 ± 3.13 | 0.679 | -0.457 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 6 | 13.27 ± 1.97 | -0.038 | 3 | 14.41 ± 1.62 | -0.886 | 0.363 | -1.304 |
ras_domination | 1st | 21 | 10.95 ± 2.30 | 22 | 9.41 ± 2.30 | 0.033 | 0.829 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 6 | 9.98 ± 2.37 | 0.521 | 3 | 11.45 ± 2.38 | -1.097 | 0.390 | -0.788 |
symptom | 1st | 21 | 28.86 ± 10.33 | 22 | 30.45 ± 10.33 | 0.615 | -0.401 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 6 | 27.58 ± 7.25 | 0.319 | 3 | 30.83 ± 6.43 | -0.093 | 0.501 | -0.813 |
slof_work | 1st | 21 | 23.43 ± 5.03 | 22 | 22.55 ± 5.03 | 0.568 | 0.820 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 6 | 21.88 ± 2.98 | 1.438 | 3 | 22.37 ± 2.33 | 0.162 | 0.788 | -0.456 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 21 | 26.95 ± 5.79 | 22 | 25.73 ± 5.79 | 0.492 | 0.764 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 6 | 24.37 ± 3.63 | 1.614 | 3 | 27.21 ± 2.99 | -0.924 | 0.220 | -1.774 |
satisfaction | 1st | 21 | 19.86 ± 6.82 | 22 | 22.55 ± 6.82 | 0.203 | -1.401 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 6 | 22.65 ± 4.30 | -1.453 | 3 | 24.59 ± 3.55 | -1.066 | 0.476 | -1.014 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 21 | 11.14 ± 3.42 | 22 | 12.00 ± 3.42 | 0.415 | -0.297 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 6 | 12.61 ± 3.59 | -0.508 | 3 | 14.10 ± 3.63 | -0.727 | 0.564 | -0.515 |
mhc_social | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 5.28 | 22 | 14.68 ± 5.28 | 0.754 | 0.143 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 6 | 18.07 ± 4.93 | -0.809 | 3 | 13.67 ± 4.86 | 0.282 | 0.216 | 1.234 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 21 | 21.57 ± 6.20 | 22 | 22.95 ± 6.20 | 0.468 | -0.292 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 6 | 23.38 ± 6.20 | -0.381 | 3 | 22.49 ± 6.20 | 0.099 | 0.840 | 0.188 |
resilisnce | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 4.73 | 22 | 17.05 ± 4.73 | 0.897 | -0.165 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 6 | 17.26 ± 2.87 | -0.350 | 3 | 14.55 ± 2.30 | 2.183 | 0.134 | 2.368 |
social_provision | 1st | 21 | 13.43 ± 3.36 | 22 | 13.91 ± 3.36 | 0.642 | -0.378 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 6 | 12.80 ± 2.34 | 0.497 | 3 | 14.68 ± 2.07 | -0.609 | 0.229 | -1.484 |
els_value_living | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 3.05 | 22 | 17.41 ± 3.05 | 0.556 | -0.385 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 6 | 18.13 ± 2.34 | -0.886 | 3 | 17.35 ± 2.16 | 0.038 | 0.628 | 0.540 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 21 | 12.19 ± 3.25 | 22 | 13.91 ± 3.25 | 0.091 | -1.255 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 6 | 13.68 ± 2.37 | -1.086 | 3 | 14.28 ± 2.14 | -0.270 | 0.705 | -0.440 |
els | 1st | 21 | 29.05 ± 5.69 | 22 | 31.32 ± 5.69 | 0.198 | -0.931 | ||
els | 2nd | 6 | 31.80 ± 4.18 | -1.129 | 3 | 31.60 ± 3.79 | -0.116 | 0.943 | 0.082 |
social_connect | 1st | 21 | 27.05 ± 10.25 | 22 | 26.64 ± 10.25 | 0.896 | 0.133 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 6 | 28.84 ± 6.60 | -0.579 | 3 | 32.54 ± 5.54 | -1.904 | 0.383 | -1.193 |
shs_agency | 1st | 21 | 13.71 ± 4.82 | 22 | 14.64 ± 4.82 | 0.534 | -0.618 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 6 | 15.27 ± 3.13 | -1.040 | 3 | 15.32 ± 2.64 | -0.461 | 0.977 | -0.039 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 21 | 16.19 ± 3.68 | 22 | 17.18 ± 3.68 | 0.382 | -0.823 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 6 | 17.15 ± 2.43 | -0.793 | 3 | 17.82 ± 2.08 | -0.527 | 0.670 | -0.557 |
shs | 1st | 21 | 29.90 ± 7.88 | 22 | 31.82 ± 7.88 | 0.431 | -1.159 | ||
shs | 2nd | 6 | 32.22 ± 4.65 | -1.404 | 3 | 32.77 ± 3.63 | -0.577 | 0.847 | -0.332 |
esteem | 1st | 21 | 12.67 ± 1.24 | 22 | 12.32 ± 1.24 | 0.362 | 0.334 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 6 | 13.67 ± 1.30 | -0.959 | 3 | 12.52 ± 1.31 | -0.198 | 0.226 | 1.095 |
mlq_search | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 3.37 | 22 | 15.23 ± 3.37 | 0.972 | -0.023 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 6 | 15.54 ± 2.60 | -0.218 | 3 | 15.88 ± 2.40 | -0.411 | 0.846 | -0.216 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 21 | 14.14 ± 4.05 | 22 | 13.23 ± 4.05 | 0.463 | 0.921 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 6 | 14.40 ± 2.47 | -0.260 | 3 | 11.79 ± 1.98 | 1.449 | 0.095 | 2.630 |
mlq | 1st | 21 | 29.33 ± 6.78 | 22 | 28.45 ± 6.78 | 0.673 | 0.386 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 6 | 29.93 ± 4.52 | -0.262 | 3 | 27.71 ± 3.88 | 0.328 | 0.451 | 0.976 |
empower | 1st | 21 | 20.10 ± 4.35 | 22 | 19.82 ± 4.35 | 0.836 | 0.287 | ||
empower | 2nd | 6 | 20.01 ± 2.60 | 0.084 | 3 | 18.91 ± 2.04 | 0.941 | 0.490 | 1.144 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 21 | 14.95 ± 2.67 | 22 | 14.91 ± 2.67 | 0.958 | 0.025 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 6 | 14.41 ± 2.46 | 0.311 | 3 | 15.34 ± 2.41 | -0.243 | 0.593 | -0.529 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 21 | 12.00 ± 3.03 | 22 | 10.41 ± 3.03 | 0.092 | 0.996 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 6 | 10.69 ± 2.46 | 0.817 | 3 | 10.54 ± 2.33 | -0.079 | 0.926 | 0.099 |
sss_affective | 1st | 21 | 9.95 ± 4.26 | 22 | 9.05 ± 4.26 | 0.489 | 0.777 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 6 | 10.02 ± 2.66 | -0.057 | 3 | 8.36 ± 2.19 | 0.589 | 0.327 | 1.423 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 21 | 10.19 ± 4.39 | 22 | 8.82 ± 4.39 | 0.311 | 0.731 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 6 | 8.66 ± 3.22 | 0.816 | 3 | 7.79 ± 2.92 | 0.550 | 0.687 | 0.464 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 21 | 7.48 ± 4.09 | 22 | 8.05 ± 4.09 | 0.650 | -0.322 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 6 | 9.04 ± 3.02 | -0.885 | 3 | 6.87 ± 2.74 | 0.664 | 0.291 | 1.227 |
sss | 1st | 21 | 27.62 ± 11.93 | 22 | 25.91 ± 11.93 | 0.641 | 0.472 | ||
sss | 2nd | 6 | 27.55 ± 7.69 | 0.019 | 3 | 23.54 ± 6.46 | 0.654 | 0.417 | 1.107 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(47.89) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)
2st
t(45.85) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.06)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(41.72) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.58)
2st
t(29.06) = 1.33, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -1.76, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.74)
ras_confidence
1st
t(41.73) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-2.03 to 3.83)
2st
t(28.75) = 0.48, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-3.10 to 4.99)
ras_willingness
1st
t(44.08) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.28)
2st
t(19.87) = 0.57, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.30)
ras_goal
1st
t(41.55) = 0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.10)
2st
t(33.61) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.73)
ras_reliance
1st
t(41.56) = 0.42, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.33)
2st
t(33.06) = 0.92, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -1.30, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.65)
ras_domination
1st
t(46.51) = -2.20, p = 0.033, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-2.96 to -0.13)
2st
t(29.40) = 0.87, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.97 to 4.90)
symptom
1st
t(42.12) = 0.51, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-4.76 to 7.96)
2st
t(23.36) = 0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-6.57 to 13.05)
slof_work
1st
t(41.33) = -0.58, p = 0.568, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.98 to 2.21)
2st
t(42.09) = 0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-3.17 to 4.15)
slof_relationship
1st
t(41.56) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-4.79 to 2.34)
2st
t(33.31) = 1.25, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -1.77, 95% CI (-1.79 to 7.48)
satisfaction
1st
t(41.58) = 1.29, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (-1.51 to 6.89)
2st
t(32.69) = 0.72, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-3.55 to 7.44)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(46.95) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.95)
2st
t(33.11) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-3.71 to 6.69)
mhc_social
1st
t(44.81) = -0.32, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.75 to 2.74)
2st
t(21.40) = -1.27, p = 0.216, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-11.57 to 2.77)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(45.95) = 0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.42 to 5.19)
2st
t(25.90) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-9.91 to 8.13)
resilisnce
1st
t(41.42) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.72 to 3.10)
2st
t(38.17) = -1.53, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 2.37, 95% CI (-6.29 to 0.88)
social_provision
1st
t(42.07) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.55)
2st
t(23.82) = 1.24, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-1.27 to 5.04)
els_value_living
1st
t(42.72) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.43)
2st
t(20.19) = -0.49, p = 0.628, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-4.05 to 2.50)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(42.35) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)
2st
t(21.70) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.66 to 3.86)
els
1st
t(42.40) = 1.31, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.77)
2st
t(21.39) = -0.07, p = 0.943, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-5.96 to 5.56)
social_connect
1st
t(41.67) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-6.72 to 5.90)
2st
t(30.20) = 0.89, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -1.19, 95% CI (-4.84 to 12.24)
shs_agency
1st
t(41.70) = 0.63, p = 0.534, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.89)
2st
t(29.41) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.00 to 4.12)
shs_pathway
1st
t(41.79) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.26)
2st
t(27.66) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.52 to 3.86)
shs
1st
t(41.31) = 0.80, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -1.16, 95% CI (-2.94 to 6.77)
2st
t(42.77) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.15 to 6.25)
esteem
1st
t(46.89) = -0.92, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.41)
2st
t(32.48) = -1.23, p = 0.226, Cohen d = 1.10, 95% CI (-3.03 to 0.74)
mlq_search
1st
t(42.74) = 0.04, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.11)
2st
t(20.13) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-3.30 to 3.98)
mlq_presence
1st
t(41.43) = -0.74, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.41 to 1.58)
2st
t(37.64) = -1.72, p = 0.095, Cohen d = 2.63, 95% CI (-5.70 to 0.47)
mlq
1st
t(41.83) = -0.42, p = 0.673, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.05 to 3.30)
2st
t(26.93) = -0.77, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-8.17 to 3.73)
empower
1st
t(41.35) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.40)
2st
t(41.03) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.10)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(44.59) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.60)
2st
t(20.85) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.64 to 4.50)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(43.21) = -1.72, p = 0.092, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.45 to 0.27)
2st
t(19.42) = -0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.67 to 3.35)
sss_affective
1st
t(41.55) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.53 to 1.72)
2st
t(33.66) = -1.00, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.42, 95% CI (-5.05 to 1.73)
sss_behavior
1st
t(42.40) = -1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-4.07 to 1.33)
2st
t(21.43) = -0.41, p = 0.687, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.31 to 3.57)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(42.43) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.95 to 3.09)
2st
t(21.24) = -1.08, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-6.34 to 1.99)
sss
1st
t(41.67) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-9.06 to 5.64)
2st
t(30.09) = -0.82, p = 0.417, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-13.97 to 5.94)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(33.55) = 1.01, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.46)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(7.67) = 1.27, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.44)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(7.69) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.28 to 3.38)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(10.87) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.07 to 2.25)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(7.50) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.72)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(7.52) = 1.09, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.42)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(18.37) = 1.46, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (-0.90 to 4.98)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(8.09) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-7.04 to 7.78)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(7.29) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.23 to 1.88)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(7.51) = 1.14, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-1.55 to 4.52)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(7.53) = 1.31, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.59 to 5.68)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(21.10) = 0.98, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-2.37 to 6.57)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(12.40) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-7.05 to 5.04)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(15.85) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-8.16 to 7.22)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(7.38) = -2.69, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 2.18, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.32)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(8.04) = 0.75, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.14)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(8.79) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.67 to 2.56)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(8.35) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.15 to 2.89)
els
1st vs 2st
t(8.41) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-4.21 to 4.77)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(7.62) = 2.35, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.90, 95% CI (0.06 to 11.76)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(7.65) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.50)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(7.74) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.90)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(7.28) = 0.71, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.20 to 4.10)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(20.63) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.82)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(8.82) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-2.25 to 3.56)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(7.39) = -1.78, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 1.45, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(7.78) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.02 to 3.52)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(7.32) = -1.16, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-2.75 to 0.93)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(11.92) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.57 to 3.43)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(9.45) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.74 to 2.99)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(7.50) = -0.73, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.52)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(8.40) = -0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.49 to 2.42)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(8.45) = -0.83, p = 0.864, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.43 to 2.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(7.62) = -0.81, p = 0.889, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-9.20 to 4.46)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(24.21) = 1.32, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.99)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(7.55) = -1.41, p = 0.394, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.44)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(7.56) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(9.99) = -0.84, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.97)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(7.41) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.18)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(7.42) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.20)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(15.01) = -0.96, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.18)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(7.88) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-6.55 to 4.00)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(7.24) = -2.50, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-3.01 to -0.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(7.42) = -2.81, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 1.61, 95% CI (-4.74 to -0.43)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(7.43) = 2.53, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (0.21 to 5.37)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(16.69) = 0.95, p = 0.711, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.80 to 4.74)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(11.08) = 1.45, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.48 to 7.25)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(13.40) = 0.70, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 7.39)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(7.31) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.94)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(7.84) = -0.87, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.05)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(8.43) = 1.56, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.14)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(8.08) = 1.90, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.29)
els
1st vs 2st
t(8.13) = 1.98, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-0.45 to 5.95)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(7.51) = 1.01, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.36 to 5.95)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(7.53) = 1.81, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.55)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(7.60) = 1.38, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.56)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(7.23) = 2.44, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (0.08 to 4.55)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(16.41) = 1.79, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(8.45) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.42)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(7.32) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.60)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(7.64) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.44 to 3.63)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(7.26) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.22)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(10.73) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.71 to 1.62)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(8.94) = -1.44, p = 0.366, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.36 to 0.74)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(7.41) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.63)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(8.13) = -1.43, p = 0.380, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-4.00 to 0.93)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(8.16) = 1.55, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.75 to 3.89)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(7.51) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-4.92 to 4.78)